Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
Im_Not_Creative_Enough
Poster
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:32 pm

Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Im_Not_Creative_Enough » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:43 pm

I'm thinking of categorizing deniers based on their intellectual level.
Let's say it's a scale of 1 to 10.
And let's say that this guy is a 1, meaning the lowest:
Image

Where on the scale would we put people like Hunt (or at least whatever's left of him), Mattogno and Hannover, or any other denier figures you can think of?

Yes, I know I sound like a reverse Mengale. This is part of the Joke :P
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:07 pm

Nick Terry had a special scale for ranking them IIRC.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:15 pm

I dunno if this can be one-dimensional. There should be a second axis, the level of denial (very crudely: no gassings, some gassings, many gassings but not at Au, etc.). I posit there would be a correlation.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:58 pm

Im_Not_Creative_Enough wrote:I'm thinking of categorizing deniers based on their intellectual level.
Let's say it's a scale of 1 to 10.
And let's say that this guy is a 1, meaning the lowest:
Image

Where on the scale would we put people like Hunt (or at least whatever's left of him), Mattogno and Hannover, or any other denier figures you can think of?

Yes, I know I sound like a reverse Mengale. This is part of the Joke :P


Flat out, most YouTube and Twitter deniers rate at a one.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby nickterry » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:39 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Nick Terry had a special scale for ranking them IIRC.


the marking scheme:

apocalyptically thick (0-9%)
extremely thick (10-19%)
very thick/self-lobotomised (20-29%)
not the sharpest knives in the drawer (30-39%)

40% is the pass mark for British undergraduate university coursework, with 40-49 = 3rd class, 50-59 = 2:2, 60-69 = 2:1, 70+ = 1st class. However, at masters level, 50% is the pass mark, with 50-59 = pass, 60-69 = merit, 70+ = distinction.

If you want a 1-10 scale, I'd differentiate by function - some deniers might not fit neatly into these categories, but it generally works.

1. gurus - basically, just Mattogno these days. Would have once included the likes of Staeglich, but (a) he is dead and (b) by today's standards he is not very impressive. would have included Kues but he gave up before finishing a book.
2. journeymen - deniers who produce nominally historical articles for Incoherent Hystery or another journal, but who tend to disappear or die before graduating to guru status. Also previous-generation deniers who didn't produce anything that original past a few articles/chapters, e.g. Enrique Aynat.
3. one hit wonders - Sanning, Heddesheimer, Warren B. Routledge, Carlos Porter, Friedrich Paul Berg While some might not have literally only produced one book, like Porter, their contributions usually go back decades and revolve essentially if not literally around one point, eg Berg and diesel, Porter and Nuremberg, Sanning and demographics, Heddesheimer and the 'first six million'.
4. parrots - Rudolf, Dalton, Kollerstrom, Graf, Winter, Thorn, Benton Bradberry, Gerard Menuhin and anyone else essentially copying former or present-day gurus. Harwood was a parrot of Hoggan, so this category goes back some time. Roger Garaudy was a parrot.
5. revisionist cheerleaders - until he died, Bradley Smith. After he gave up even trying to do pseudohistory, Faurisson. Anyone else who writes navel-gazing articles for Incoherent Hystery or CODOH website, e.g. Jeff Rucker, Hadding Scott, Richard Widmann. They must contribute to a primarily revisionist website. Toeben is another good example; he is hardly known for his contributions to denier pseudohistory. Zundel, back in the day.
6. other cheerleaders - deniers better known for their politics or other whacky beliefs, e.g. David Duke or James Fetzer. Writers for Veterans Today and other websites who don't just write or talk about revisionism. Sinead McCarthy and the flat-earth whackadoodle Eric Dubay would both qualify, one is primarily a white nationalist, the other a nutter. Andrew Anglin, obviously. Richard Williamson. These people 'endorse' revisionism.
7. videomakers - currently more or less an empty set after Hunt's apostasy.
8. flunkies - Hannover, k0nsl, the Rizolis, people who aren't really full-blown cheerleaders but who perform some greater function than chimping out on CODOH. If there are any YouTube vloggers who don't 'make documentaries', they'd fit here.
9. chimps - forum posters. Some might even have their own websites or blogs, e.g. Saggy pushes holohoax101.com and Katana something likes to transcribe internet radio interviews on his blog. Maryzilla, Greg Gerdes, been-there, not much point distinguishing between them unless they actually contribute something to CODOH or another site. Would also include occasional bloggers and at one time, Amazon reviewers.
10. trolls - YouTube commenters, Twitter deniers, and other BTL deniers commenting elsewhere, unless they overlap with #9 or above.

#1-4 are the nominal producers, #5-8 are all cheerleaders of one kind or another, and #9-10 are the footsoldiers.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby nickterry » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:57 pm

The functional categories also have to be mapped against actual research.
1. have gone to archives (few and far between obviously!)
2. have read, however shallowly, something mainstream (eg Dalton)
3. parrot other deniers' remarks about sources and literature (cough Peter Winter cough) but have read revisionist books
4. have watched videos and read articles, but gave up on p.14 of Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust despite what they might claim
5. research morons, whale.to spammers, etc.

This could be shaded out to 10 steps once again, but research skills also interact with intelligence. For example, Saggy, a classic forum chimp, might give the impression from time to time that he has read revisionist books, but most of what he does is spam links to videos and articles. He is apocalyptically thick. been-there, on the other hand, is capable of locating texts within revisionist books and spamming them, when he doesn't simply plagiarise Mark Weber. He is extremely thick. Both are really #4 for research skills, but Saggy has worse research skills than been-there. Clayton Moore was definitely #5 for research skills.

So I say judge by Intelligence, research skills and function. The Rizolis are clearly flunkies of significance with their interviews, and in some contexts seem to have read Harwood and maybe some newer books, but in a forum context they dumb themselves down even further.

By contrast, before his apostasy BRoI was undoubtedly second only to Mattogno - and maybe even ahead of Mattogno - for his research, but never really turned the work into anything substantive, so it'd be difficult to rank him as more than a revisionist cheerleader (#4 of that scale). I'll refrain from commenting on his intelligence.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby nickterry » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:05 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:I dunno if this can be one-dimensional. There should be a second axis, the level of denial (very crudely: no gassings, some gassings, many gassings but not at Au, etc.). I posit there would be a correlation.


There aren't really enough partial-deniers to bother with such an axis if it's just about gassings, the few who moved towards accepting some or most gassings tend not to be active as revisionists, e.g. Cole, Weber, Irving.

It'd be very difficult to pin down most deniers to the death toll they accept, but if one factored in shootings then you might be able to differentiate between those who cannot get past the Arolsen stats or 300,000, the 1 million crowd and then after that it'd thin out. Some who might say they accept the shootings more or less would not wish to be pinned down to a 2 million figure because then they'd get hounded by hardliners like Hannover or Gerdes.

Has any denier ever accepted > 2.7 million dead from shootings and starvation/overwork but denied > 2.6 million gassed?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:56 am

nickterry wrote: By contrast, before his apostasy BRoI was undoubtedly second only to Mattogno - and maybe even ahead of Mattogno - for his research, but never really turned the work into anything substantive, so it'd be difficult to rank him as more than a revisionist cheerleader (#4 of that scale). I'll refrain from commenting on his intelligence.


BROI is more of a flunkie. Members of category 4 at least wrote shitty articles for absurdist websites, whereas he mostly just spammed forums with his weird little photo albums.

Recall that, when presented with an incriminating SK manuscript discovered in 1980 (thus rendering void any speculation on its being a forgery), the best he could manage was some stupid little remark about ellipses. For that alone I would rate him as Extremely Thick on the marking scheme.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby nickterry » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:56 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
nickterry wrote: By contrast, before his apostasy BRoI was undoubtedly second only to Mattogno - and maybe even ahead of Mattogno - for his research, but never really turned the work into anything substantive, so it'd be difficult to rank him as more than a revisionist cheerleader (#4 of that scale). I'll refrain from commenting on his intelligence.


BROI is more of a flunkie. Members of category 4 at least wrote shitty articles for absurdist websites, whereas he mostly just spammed forums with his weird little photo albums.

Recall that, when presented with an incriminating SK manuscript discovered in 1980 (thus rendering void any speculation on its being a forgery), the best he could manage was some stupid little remark about ellipses. For that alone I would rate him as Extremely Thick on the marking scheme.


Don't let personal animosity get in the way of sound judgement. Besides, BRoI is no longer a hardline denier, having recognised that it is BS, and admitted as much. The simple act of recognising that denial is BS is a sign of at least *some* intelligence. It's also why I came up with 'very thick/self-lobotomised'. Someone like Kollerstrom managed to focus long enough to get a PhD in the history of science, regarding early modern astronomy and astrology. But when he goes into denial mode he seems incapable of comprehending the subject matter.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:31 am

If BROI is a 5, what in God's name does that make Saggy? Does this scale go all the way to 11? Obsessively petty and unpleasant don't equate to a 5 on the scale, I don't think.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby nickterry » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:44 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:If BROI is a 5, what in God's name does that make Saggy? Does this scale go all the way to 11? Obsessively petty and unpleasant don't equate to a 5 on the scale, I don't think.


That's why I proposed multiple scales. Besides, most deniers are obsessively petty and unpleasant.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:07 pm

#10, trolls, stay away from forums. I don't know of any that have crossed over, I think the format makes them uncomfortable. They can't express themselves in anything more than 140 characters. They are easily impressed by hoary old denier memes, one that I saw copies directly from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" without any comment or analysis.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:08 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:BROI is more of a flunkie. Members of category 4 at least wrote shitty articles for absurdist websites, whereas he mostly just spammed forums with his weird little photo albums.

Recall that, when presented with an incriminating SK manuscript discovered in 1980 (thus rendering void any speculation on its being a forgery), the best he could manage was some stupid little remark about ellipses. For that alone I would rate him as Extremely Thick on the marking scheme.

You mean when I proved Romanov's theory about Draper having learnt of the term "Bunker" from Hoess in Nuremberg was utter crap by proving Bendel had used the term during his examination by Draper at the Tesch trial two months earlier, and that Draper, Atkins, and their boys hadn't learnt of it from Hoess during his initial interrogations following his capture.

No surprises you missed all that Jeff, being the homophobic little dunce that you are.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:If BROI is a 5, what in God's name does that make Saggy? Does this scale go all the way to 11? Obsessively petty and unpleasant don't equate to a 5 on the scale, I don't think.


he is a 1 on research but much lower on other scales.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:23 pm

BRoI wrote:You mean when I proved Romanov's theory about Draper having learnt of the term "Bunker" from Hoess in Nuremberg was utter crap by proving Bendel had used the term during his examination by Draper at the Tesch trial two months earlier, and that Draper, Atkins, and their boys hadn't learnt of it from Hoess during his initial interrogations following his capture.


Ummm, no, but your obsessive misinterpretation of the term "bunker" caused you to slide greatly in my estimation. Here is the topic that I was referring to. The fact that you are confusing it with you meltdown on bunkers gives one the impression that you have the attention span of a fruit fly and the memory of one too.

No surprises you missed all that Jeff, being the homophobic little dunce that you are.


You're a failed abortion whose birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory. We would all appreciate it if you made your mind up on this denial thing.

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Balmoral95 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:13 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:If BROI is a 5, what in God's name does that make Saggy? Does this scale go all the way to 11? Obsessively petty and unpleasant don't equate to a 5 on the scale, I don't think.


he is a 1 on research but much lower on other scales.


Research of "so what"? Let's cut to the chase: facking wanker

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:12 pm

nickterry wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:I dunno if this can be one-dimensional. There should be a second axis, the level of denial (very crudely: no gassings, some gassings, many gassings but not at Au, etc.). I posit there would be a correlation.




Has any denier ever accepted > 2.7 million dead from shootings and starvation/overwork but denied > 2.6 million gassed?


I thought David Irving might fit this description but it seems he's now slipped back into full blown denial. He recently attended a Neo-Nazi meeting in London:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-irving-holocaust-denial-neo-nazi-alt-right-london-forum-meeting-auschwitz-hitler-revisionist-a7719291.html%3famp

I described Irving as a weathervane in the past, looks like the moniker still fits.


User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:31 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I thought David Irving might fit this description but it seems he's now slipped back into full blown denial. He recently attended a Neo-Nazi meeting in London:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-irving-holocaust-denial-neo-nazi-alt-right-london-forum-meeting-auschwitz-hitler-revisionist-a7719291.html%3famp

Don't be stupid Jeff, that's not a good enough reason to claim he's changed his views on anything. You might as well claim Irving's planning to invade Poland, because some left-wing newspaper website claims he was at a meeting and cites an anti-fascist group [aka communists] for its proof it was a "neo-nazi" meeting.
Last edited by BRoI on Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:32 pm

that headline - "Anti-Semitic 'historian' David Irving claims new support from teenage Holocaust-denying Trump fans: Disgraced author says young people are contacting him in their thousands to find out ‘the truth’ about Hitler" - is almost trolling Irving
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:41 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:that headline - "Anti-Semitic 'historian' David Irving claims new support from teenage Holocaust-denying Trump fans: Disgraced author says young people are contacting him in their thousands to find out ‘the truth’ about Hitler" - is almost trolling Irving



I think that was their point.... :lol:

I can see a whole new generation hooking into Irving's blither blather, they don't know and don't care enough about history and are influenced by stuff on YouTube.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:48 pm

It was pretty funny, for sure.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:54 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I can see a whole new generation hooking into Irving's blither blather, they don't know and don't care enough about history and are influenced by stuff on YouTube.

As many of his opponents have said, Irving was a very talented public speaker in his pomp; this video from the '80s shows how good he was even if what he's saying isn't accurate. I could put together a Romanov-style quote-stack of all the praise Justice Gray gave him for his performance during the libel trial.

Now days he's unbearable to listen to, he just mumbles. I watched a video of him last year and he kept going off on tangents, that were irrelevant, inaccurate, and worst of all, boring.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:09 pm

BRoI wrote: I thought David Irving might fit this description but it seems he's now slipped back into full blown denial. He recently attended a Neo-Nazi meeting in London:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-irving-holocaust-denial-neo-nazi-alt-right-london-forum-meeting-auschwitz-hitler-revisionist-a7719291.html%3famp

Don't be stupid Jeff,


I'll try hard not to be, Rabbit. You have my promise.

that's not a good enough reason to claim he's changed his views on anything.


OK, I'll ignore this bit, then:
Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.


But, then I'd have to ignore he said this:

During his trial in Austria, Irving said he had changed his mind over claims the Holocaust did not happen.....


But he said that while he accepted 1.4 million were killed in the so-called "Operation Reinhard" camps which included Treblinka and Sobibor, he did not accept that large numbers were murdered at Auschwitz.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4757506.stm

And so on. He's a {!#%@} weathervane, Rabbit, happy to blow in whatever direction suits him. I'm not going to spend all afternoon tracking down all the times he's changed his mind, I wrote up a timeline on Furtherglory's Blog once. I'm not going to do it again.

You might as well claim Irving's planning to invade Poland, because some left-wing newspaper website claims he was at a meeting and cites an anti-fascist group [aka communists] for its proof it was a "neo-nazi" meeting.


I'm going to go with that makes no {!#%@} sense whatsoever and leave it at that.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:34 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:OK, I'll ignore this bit, then:
Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.


Blimey, that journalist is a hack.

Irving was obviously referring to that stupid 1948 German news clip again about the late-1947 Krakow-Guards trial which reports that the defendants were convicted of killing 300,000 people at Auschwitz.

Some previous examples of Irving relying on it:
1999: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/deathroll/Wochenschau1948.html
2000: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/day02 he even introduced this as "evidence" at his trial!
2013: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html

The newsreel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmDA6SLzHM

Michael Mills told Irving this was rubbish in 1999, and Faurisson said it was wrong as early as 1995.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/Mills060899.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/appfaur1.html

The 300,000 almost certainly refers to registered inmates only, and excludes unregistered victims. A figure of 300,000 registered inmates, along with a suspected "4,000,000 people mainly Jews" featured in the trial indictment of Rudolf Hoess. His trial, of course, took place in Warsaw seven months earlier than the Krakow-Auschwitz trial in question.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-7.pdf
http://ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess.htm
Last edited by BRoI on Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:41 pm

You should be at a level to spot a shitty newspaper article when you see one, you've incorrectly given the impression to the idiot Kleon that the article is accurately reporting what was said at this meeting.

You claim to have compiled a list of the times Irving changed his mind, how can you not know about his obsession with this news clip if you're so familiar with his work?
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:51 pm

BRoI wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:OK, I'll ignore this bit, then:
Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.


Blimey, that journalist is a hack.

Irving was obviously referring to that stupid 1948 German news clip again about the late-1947 Krakow-Guards trial which reports that the defendants were convicted of killing 300,000 people at Auschwitz.

Some previous examples of Irving relying on it:
1999: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/deathroll/Wochenschau1948.html
2000: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/day02 he even introduced this as "evidence" at his trial!
2013: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html

The newsreel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmDA6SLzHM

Michael Mills told Irving this was rubbish in 1999, and Faurisson said it was wrong as early as 1995.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/Mills060899.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/appfaur1.html

The 300,000 almost certainly refers to registered inmates only, and excludes unregistered victims. A figure of 300,000 registered inmates, along with a suspected "4,000,000 people mainly Jews" featured in the trial indictment of Rudolf Hoess. His trial, of course, took place in Warsaw seven months earlier than the Krakow-Auschwitz trial in question.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-7.pdf
http://ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess.htm



Maybe you should call Irving a hack for relying on it then, Rabbit. Those are his words, not mine. Besides, as I showed you, Irving wound up claiming that the Reinhard Camps were extermination camps. Maybe he's just getting senile in his old age, not a surprise but perhaps he should spend the remainder of days sitting in a chair, wrapped in a blanket and sipping good, English tea.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:05 pm

BRoI wrote:You should be at a level to spot a shitty newspaper article when you see one, you've incorrectly given the impression to the idiot Kleon that the article is accurately reporting what was said at this meeting.


Kleon is hardly an idiot, Rabbit. He is invaluable resource in regards to what happened to the Greek Jews and has provided me resources on other things in the past.

As for the newspaper article, if Irving releases a transcript on what he said during that meeting and the journalist was wrong I will admit my error and apologize. You know me, Rabbit. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:38 pm

The journalist is clearly lying/mistaken about what Irving said, claiming Irving said 300,000 died in the Holocaust whereas he said 300,000 people died at Auschwitz. Irving was still wrong, he just wasn't *that* wrong.

My previous posts spreads the opprobrium on Irving thick for his continued reliance on this newsclip. In fact, I'm the only person in the world whose done so. The Lipstadt team at the trial didn't even know what I just told you about this news report. So, your objection that I didn't also call him a "hack" is petty.

Besides, as I showed you, Irving wound up claiming that the Reinhard Camps were extermination camps.

1. This is irrelevant to the 300,000 discussion
2. I already knew that of course. I know far, far more about his varying views that you do. "Heinrich Hovis" could tell you that.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:45 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Kleon is hardly an idiot, Rabbit. He is invaluable resource in regards to what happened to the Greek Jews and has provided me resources on other things in the past.

As for the newspaper article, if Irving releases a transcript on what he said during that meeting and the journalist was wrong I will admit my error and apologize. You know me, Rabbit. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

You are a reasonable bloke, and don't think you owe anyone an apology. The journalist is the one who needs to apologise for misleading people.

There's prolly a video of this meeting on youtube.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Irving confirming 5-6m Jews were killed

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:37 pm

.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Irving confirming 5-6m Jews were killed

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:39 pm

BRoI wrote:.



?

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Irving confirming 5-6m Jews were killed

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:44 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
BRoI wrote:.



?

lol, took it elsewhere.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=28458
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:03 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:As for the newspaper article, if Irving releases a transcript on what he said during that meeting and the journalist was wrong I will admit my error and apologize.


He was lying/wrong. First, here's a reminder of what the hack wrote:

Matt Broomfield, The Independent, Sunday 7 May 2017 wrote:
Image

Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.


David Irving, London Forum meeting, 4 February 2017 wrote:
I'm not going to deny the Holocaust but I am going to say that Auschwitz was not the centre of it. Auschwitz was small beer; Auschwitz was just one site where nothing happened, effectively. Heinrich Himmler didn't bother—the chief of the SS—he didn't bother to visit Auschwitz for the remaining three years of World War II, he went the last time on July the 12th, 1942. So, it's unimportant.

The number of people killed there was less than 300,000 people of all nationalities, dying of all causes, according to the Polish courts. This isn't Holocaust denial, this is a statement of the facts.

So, they made this film [Denial, 2016] to boost Auschwitz into the site where it all happened.

You fly into Cracow, Krakow, the local airport and you're greet there by big signs—aren't you? [pointing at someone off camera] You might have noticed this—you're greeted there by a big signs saying 'Welcome to the Auschwitz Experience' [audience laughter]. Yes, because it's like Disneyland.

And you go there, and everything is chrome, and ground glass, and very expensive.

And because it's very easy to get to, i's got an airport less than an hour away, it's got hotels all around, it's got McDonalds, it's got a hot-dog stand in the car-park.

Where everything really happened were the so-called "Reinhard[t] sites", "the Operation Reinhard[t] sites", in eastern Poland, two or three hundred miles away.

@ 20:07


As I predicted, Iriving was indeed referring to that stupid German newsreel about the 1947 Krakow-Guards trial that he's be wrong about so many times before.

The covert photo [shown above] the hack Broomfield published with his article reveals where he was seated:

Image
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:06 pm

BRoI wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:As for the newspaper article, if Irving releases a transcript on what he said during that meeting and the journalist was wrong I will admit my error and apologize.


He was lying/wrong. First, here's a reminder of what the hack wrote:

Matt Broomfield, The Independent, Sunday 7 May 2017 wrote:
Image

Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.


David Irving, London Forum meeting, 4 February 2017 wrote:
I'm not going to deny the Holocaust but I am going to say that Auschwitz was not the centre of it. Auschwitz was small beer; Auschwitz was just one site where nothing happened, effectively. Heinrich Himmler didn't bother—the chief of the SS—he didn't bother to visit Auschwitz for the remaining three years of World War II, he went the last time on July the 12th, 1942. So, it's unimportant.

The number of people killed there was less than 300,000 people of all nationalities, dying of all causes, according to the Polish courts. This isn't Holocaust denial, this is a statement of the facts.

So, they made this film [Denial, 2016] to boost Auschwitz into the site where it all happened.

You fly into Cracow, Krakow, the local airport and you're greet there by big signs—aren't you? [pointing at someone off camera] You might have noticed this—you're greeted there by a big signs saying 'Welcome to the Auschwitz Experience' [audience laughter]. Yes, because it's like Disneyland.

And you go there, and everything is chrome, and ground glass, and very expensive.

And because it's very easy to get to, i's got an airport less than an hour away, it's got hotels all around, it's got McDonalds, it's got a hot-dog stand in the car-park.

Where everything really happened were the so-called "Reinhard[t] sites", "the Operation Reinhard[t] sites", in eastern Poland, two or three hundred miles away.

@ 20:07


As I predicted, Iriving was indeed referring to that stupid German newsreel about the 1947 Krakow-Guards trial that he's be wrong about so many times before.

The covert photo [shown above] the hack Broomfield published with his article reveals where he was seated:

Image


Very well, Rabbit. If nothing else you've set the record straight about Irving. I will withdraw what I said about Irving earlier, but, naturally, I will leave my original comments where they are.

Naturally I completely disagree with what Irving says about Auschwitz, after all, the history is clear on that.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6427
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:07 pm

Like you said...I'm a reasonable bloke.

:D

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby BRoI » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:57 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Like you said...I'm a reasonable bloke.

:D

Some of the time. ;)
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:05 am

BRoI wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I can see a whole new generation hooking into Irving's blither blather, they don't know and don't care enough about history and are influenced by stuff on YouTube.

As many of his opponents have said, Irving was a very talented public speaker in his pomp; this video from the '80s shows how good he was even if what he's saying isn't accurate. I could put together a Romanov-style quote-stack of all the praise Justice Gray gave him for his performance during the libel trial.


I read almost the entire transcript. Irving came off as desperate, pedantic, and a little bit nuts. He changed goalposts a couple times on the Posen speech and he went on a number of strange tangents. Van Pelt absolutely outclassed him.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Low Denial to High Denial and back again

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:28 pm

BRoI wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I can see a whole new generation hooking into Irving's blither blather, they don't know and don't care enough about history and are influenced by stuff on YouTube.

As many of his opponents have said, Irving was a very talented public speaker in his pomp; this video from the '80s shows how good he was even if what he's saying isn't accurate. I could put together a Romanov-style quote-stack of all the praise Justice Gray gave him for his performance during the libel trial.

lol, poor Bunny still butthurt over me proving with his own words that he is a pathological liar.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Im_Not_Creative_Enough, istellabot [Bot] and 1 guest